Is Islam A Religion Of Truth, Peace And Love Or Not?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Varg' date='12 December 2009 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1260633992' post='2019090']
Because all Muslims are terrorists, right?

No.
[/quote]
No, but apparently, we mustn't joke about Muslims. Everyone else is fair game. Why do you care, atheist?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='12 December 2009 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1260634933' post='2019096']
There are several billion people in the world -- to wit, any Moslem [of course], Hindu, Buddhist, animist, atheist, Jew -- in fact, anyone who is not a Christian -- who would dispute that with you. It seems a very arrogant attitude. I don't doubt for an instant that there is a God, but I wouldn't have the hubris to maintain that there is only one way to acknowledge Him, however He may be or how we can perceive him.
[/quote]
That's your creed, not ours. Apparently "hubris" only works one way.

[Antigonos]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 December 2009 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1260635110' post='2019100']
That's your creed, not ours. Apparently "hubris" only works one way.
[/quote]

There are religions which, while they feel they have a correct belief, do not think that everyone else is wrong. Both Islam and Christianity are protelyzing religions, and if not similar theologically, both believe that they each have a monopoly on "truth" and an obligation to force it on everyone else. If that isn't hubris, I don't know what is.

I often wonder: if Jesus returned tomorrow, whether he would ask "Who is this Paul fellow and why aren't all you "Christians" who want to live in imitation of me not Torah-observant Jews? I was".

[Varg]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 December 2009 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1260635021' post='2019098']
No, but apparently, we mustn't joke about Muslims. Everyone else is fair game. Why do you care, atheist?
[/quote]
Sorry for not finding nearly 3, 000 people burning to death in a building particularly funny.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='12 December 2009 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1260636198' post='2019110']
There are religions which, while they feel they have a correct belief, do not think that everyone else is wrong. Both Islam and Christianity are protelyzing religions[/quote]
That would be their creed. And it's not logical to state: "This person is God, but if you deny that, you're right." You're still applying your creed to everyone else. That's ethnocentrism. For shame. You are stating your creed is right, but ours is wrong. That's the same thing you're clucking your tongue at us for.

[quote]a monopoly on "truth" and an obligation to force it on everyone else.[/quote]
And where in our dogma does is say we can/must "force" conversions?

[quote] If that isn't hubris, [i]I don't know what is[/i].[/quote]
That's the most insightful thing you've said.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='12 December 2009 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1260634933' post='2019096']
There are several billion people in the world -- to wit, any Moslem [of course], Hindu, Buddhist, animist, atheist, Jew -- in fact, anyone who is not a Christian -- who would dispute that with you. It seems a very arrogant attitude. I don't doubt for an instant that there is a God, but I wouldn't have the hubris to maintain that there is only one way to acknowledge Him, however He may be or how we can perceive him.
[/quote]

Well, Jesus did claim that there is only one way to God.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Varg' date='12 December 2009 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1260636472' post='2019115']
Sorry for not finding nearly 3, 000 people burning to death in a building particularly funny.
[/quote]
That wasn't what you opposed about it. You opposed the "insult" to Muslims. You didn't mention any victims. If you're going to be self-righteous at least [i]try [/i]to be good at it.

[Varg]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 December 2009 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1260636735' post='2019119']
If you're going to be self-righteous at least [i]try [/i]to be good at it.
[/quote]Could you give some tips? You're an expert.

If someone said "ooh look, 220 people were burned to death in Montségur, all Catholics must like burning people!" I'd correct them, too.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Varg

[Winchester]

[quote name='Varg' date='12 December 2009 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1260636808' post='2019120']
Could you give some tips? You're an expert.
[/quote]
You'll need to show an example of me being self-righteous. Generally, I'm sardonic. I don't use myself as an example of righteousness.

[Varg]

[quote name='Winchester' date='12 December 2009 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1260636898' post='2019122']
You'll need to show an example of me being self-righteous. Generally, I'm sardonic. I don't use myself as an example of righteousness.
[/quote]
Weeeell, you subscribe to the idea that everyone who has a different viewpoint to you is going to hell.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Varg

[Winchester]

[quote name='Varg' date='12 December 2009 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1260637171' post='2019127']
Weeeell, you subscribe to the idea that everyone who has a different viewpoint to you is going to hell.
[/quote]
It has nothing to do with [i]my [/i]viewpoint. It's not me. Thus it's not self-righteousness. I do believe I've explained my quite unacceptable reason for being Catholic.

The Church teaches that there is one way to Heaven, yes, but you need to look at all the teachings surrounding that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Varg,

You've got the wrong guy, I'm the self-righteous one. I am also proud to be holier than thou.

So what do you need again? Tips?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Varg' date='12 December 2009 - 11:59 AM' timestamp='1260637171' post='2019127']
Weeeell, you subscribe to the idea that everyone who has a different viewpoint to you is going to hell.
[/quote]

There are quite a few canonized saints who had views of different issues that were contrary to my views, yet I hold that those saints are certainly in heaven.

[mortify]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='12 December 2009 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1260634933' post='2019096']
There are several billion people in the world -- to wit, any Moslem [of course], Hindu, Buddhist, animist, atheist, Jew -- in fact, anyone who is not a Christian -- who would dispute that with you. It seems a very arrogant attitude. I don't doubt for an instant that there is a God, but I wouldn't have the hubris to maintain that there is only one way to acknowledge Him, however He may be or how we can perceive him.
[/quote]

It's only hubris if you adopt a naturalist worldview, since man can know very little about God through his natural powers. But the reality is God has made Himself known supernaturally, through revelation and grace, and so acknowledging what God has revealed is not hubris but humility, since confirming our will to the Divine Will requires an act of humility.

[HisChildForever]

Mortify, can you please visit my "Islam and Homosexuality" thread? As a former Muslim, I am confident that you can answer my questions (whereas our Muslim posters seem to be avoiding them). Thanks!

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Varg' date='12 December 2009 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1260633992' post='2019090']
Because all Muslims are terrorists, right?

No.
[/quote]

i didnt say that. i said someone. not all Muslims are terrorists but Muslim terrorists do exist obviously. I'm not that stupid.

[Pomak]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='13 December 2009 - 03:43 AM' timestamp='1260636198' post='2019110']
There are religions which, while they feel they have a correct belief, do not think that everyone else is wrong. Both Islam and Christianity are protelyzing religions, and if not similar theologically, both believe that they each have a monopoly on "truth" and an obligation to force it on everyone else. If that isn't hubris, I don't know what is.

I often wonder: if Jesus returned tomorrow, whether he would ask "Who is this Paul fellow and why aren't all you "Christians" who want to live in imitation of me not Torah-observant Jews? I was".
[/quote]

Even I know that both us and Christians would disagree with that.

And the second part is my thoughts exactly.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='12 December 2009 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1260627907' post='2019058']
Socrates



Sins against humanity approved and committed by the Church(its members), were worse in the past than those today. Punishment for
crimes was like nothing we have today. During the 1500's in Spain during the time of the Inquisition, the crime for stealing a sheep,
was disembowelment. We don't see that in our world today. We have evolved, thanks to Christian understanding.[/quote]
Oh, indeed.
Obviously, plenty of sins and evils were committed in ages past, but it's an extremely dubious and hubristic assumption to say that there's overall less evil and sin in the Church and in the world today.
In the Church, for instance, we've recently seen a massive clerical sexual abuse scandal, with many bishops actively covering up for sexual predators, "Catholic" politicians actively supporting the slaughter of the innocents by abortion, and large numbers of "Catholics" (including in the clergy and religious) completely rejecting Church teaching on abortion, extra-marital sex, contraception, and homosexuality.

I'm sure in your "progressive" mindset, you may not see much of those trends as being a big deal; in fact you may well regard much of it as evidence of "progress" or "spiritual evolution," but the Church sees it otherwise. Read what the Popes have to say.

Yes, we have become more humane in our punishments for the guilty, yet society as large, unfortunately including many "Catholics," supports the outright slaughter of [i]innocent[/i] human life through abortion.
And as the past 100 years have seen state-sponsored violence and murder on an unprecedented scale, including two world wars, the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews, 100 million murdered under atheist Communism, and countless billions of innocent babies murdered by legal abortion, I'd hardly say modern people are less sinful and more "spiritually evolved" than they were 500 years ago.
But what do I know - I no doubt lack your "spiritual evolvement."


[quote]Pope Innocent IV issued the Papal Bull, [url="/wiki/Ad_exstirpanda"][i]Ad exstirpanda[/i][/url], allowing the use of torture on heretics. The Bull also placed limits
on how much torture could be used, but it did allow for it, and of course, it was abused to the hilt.
[/quote]
Power, of course, is never abused today (except, maybe, by conservative Republicans).
Of course, its much easier and politically correct to sit around and condemn evils that happened many centuries ago than it is to speak out strongly against the evils of our own time.

Evil occurs in all times, and the particular evils in vogue change from age to age, but it's foolish and hubristic to claim that man is spiritually better today than ever in the past.


[quote]Yes they were more fair, in fact, our courts today, and based on the ecclesiastical courts of the Inquisition. However, just as our courts today are sometimes abused, so to were the ecclesiastical courts of the Inquisition.
[/quote]
I don't deny that. My point is that these were not problems caused by or exclusive to the Catholic Church.

[quote]Actually, much of what he wrote is accepted by the Church today. Through better understanding of what he wrote, it became clear, he was right.
[/quote]
While his teachings may no longer be officially censured, the Church has never endorsed his teachings.
The Church has specifically condemned the idea of evolution applied to the human soul.

[quote]The Church as a whole, is more spiritually evolved than in the past, I have no doubt about it. The average Catholic is able to understand and participate in the deeper spiritual riches of the Church, such as Contemplation.
In the 1500,s during the time of St Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, contemplation was forbidden. Heck, St. John was thrown in prison by his own order, for his teachings on spirituality. St. Teresa was also brought before the Inquisition. Remember, it was only in 1970, that she was made a Doctor of the Church, and average Catholics began to have her writings taught to them without reservation.
[/quote]
Contemplation was never forbidden by the Church. Yes, it takes time for the Church to give approval to new orders and spiritual movements. But such caution is necessary to separate true spiritual movements from false and destructive ones.
It's true that the Church has gained spiritual riches over the year, yet I wouldn't to say unequivocally that Catholics as a whole are more "spiritually evolved" than in the past.
Today, huge percentages of "Catholics" are ignorant of or blatantly reject the most basic tenants of their Faith, including such doctrines as the divinity of Christ and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and basic moral teachings, such as the wrongness of abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. Do you really think the average Catholic today participates more in the spiritual riches of the Church than in the past?
But, oh well, I suppose that's just "spiritual evolution."
At least they reject "fundamentalism."


[quote]I've seen fundamentalist Catholics take a teaching from the Catechism literally, and misinterpret it. One is a friend of mine,
who showed me how he learned from the Catechism, that the soul of a person existed before conception. He even got into
a heated argument on retreat with the monk, who is a theologian. Finally, God got through to him and he began to understand
that his interpretation was wrong. But he's not unique. I've seen it time and time again throughout Catholic web forums.[/quote]
This sounds like a case of simple ignorance, which thankfully was overcome. So "fundamentalism" according to you is any ignorance or rejection of Catholic teaching in favor of one's own personal opinions?
Personally, I've seen this sort of practice a lot more from "liberal Catholics" than from anyone who could be called "fundamentalist," though stubborness and ignorance is not limited to any one ideology.
And is erroneously understanding a Catechism passage somehow worse than those who never bother to follow what the Catechism teaches in the first place?

(Btw, I've only come across one self-professed Catholic who believed in the pre-existence of human souls, and he was quite "progressive" and liberal in his persuasions.)

Returning to my original question, I'd like some more specific examples of who these Catholic "fundamentalists" are that you talk about. If they're really in danger of taking over the Church, surely you can provide some prominent examples.


[quote]Well I'll trust the Jesuits at American Magazine, before most people who participate in Catholic Web forums. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/P.gif[/img]
[/quote]
Guess that means I shouldn't trust what you say here.
I'll stick with Catholic orthodoxy, thank you very much.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Socrates

[JimR-OCDS]

Socrates

[quote]
Oh, indeed.
Obviously, plenty of sins and evils were committed in ages past, but it's an extremely dubious and hubristic assumption to say that there's overall less evil and sin in the Church and in the world today.[/quote]

Well I think you'll just have to make an honest study of the Church throughout the centuries, to see the dirty laundry. Papal armies being sent in to slaughter, and such. The use of heresy and excommunication, to force people to behave in ways to benefit the Church's coffers.



[quote]
In the Church, for instance, we've recently seen a massive clerical sexual abuse scandal, with many bishops actively covering up for sexual predators, "Catholic" politicians actively supporting the slaughter of the innocents by abortion, and large numbers of "Catholics" (including in the clergy and religious) completely rejecting Church teaching on abortion, extra-marital sex, contraception, and homosexuality.
[/quote]

Are you presuming that there was no sex abuse by Catholic Clergy in the past? Along with the other atrocities, there was as much if not more sex abuse by Catholic Clergy, and in those days, not even noblemen would dare speak out against the Church.

[quote]
I'm sure in your "progressive" mindset, you may not see much of those trends as being a big deal; in fact you may well regard much of it as evidence of "progress" or "spiritual evolution," but the Church sees it otherwise. Read what the Popes have to say
[/quote]

Well you're problem here is you're flawed judgment of what I think.

The sex abuse scandal has caused great harm to the Catholic Church, and it will take generations to overcome. Fact is, because of it, the Pope and Bishops can no longer speak with moral authority, without having the sex abuse scandal thrown in their face.

[quote]
Yes, we have become more humane in our punishments for the guilty, yet society as large, unfortunately including many "Catholics," supports the outright slaughter of [i]innocent[/i] human life through abortion.
[/quote]

There will always be those who have not evolved spiritually. Those who support abortion, generally don't have much of a spiritual life, other than going to church for either social/political purposes, or out of a sense of guilt. Of course neither of these two reasons have anything to do with spiritual faith, but rather, the mere practice of religion.

[quote]
And as the past 100 years have seen state-sponsored violence and murder on an unprecedented scale, including two world wars, the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews, 100 million murdered under atheist Communism, and countless billions of innocent babies murdered by legal abortion, I'd hardly say modern people are less sinful and more "spiritually evolved" than they were 500 years ago.
But what do I know - I no doubt lack your "spiritual involvement."
[/quote]

Like I said, not everyone evolves spiritually. However, I believe there are more people in the world today, who have evolved spiritually, and live lives of true contemplation, than in years past.


[quote]
Contemplation was never forbidden by the Church.
[/quote]

Contemplative prayer and spiritual teachings on contemplation were prohibited during St Teresa and St. John of the Cross's time in Spain. Pick up a copy of the Collected Works of St Teresa, by Fr. Kavenaugh OCD, its all in there.

[quote]
Yes, it takes time for the Church to give approval to new orders and spiritual movements. But such caution is necessary to separate true spiritual movements from false and destructive ones.
[/quote]

Actually, in the case of St. Teresa and St John of the Cross, it was the suppression of spirituality from the past going back to the desert fathers. The Church in the East, never abandon it as they did in the West.
Quiet Prayer was seen as dangerous, and St Teresa was prohibited from writing about it and was brought before the Inquisition. Luckily, the inquisitor was her confessor, who had already accepted her experiences and teachings on prayer.


[quote]
It's true that the Church has gained spiritual riches over the year, yet I wouldn't to say unequivocally that Catholics as a whole are more "spiritually evolved" than in the past.
[/quote]

Oh I do. I see the difference between the spiritual level of pre-Vatican II Catholics and Catholics today.
In both eras, there were those who were spiritually deep, but I believe there are more today, who are going into contemplation, where the older generation, it was limited to religious and those living in monasteries. The average Catholic would've been dissuaded from reading about Contemplative Prayer by their parish priest, because even they were ignorant on contemplative prayer. Even today, the majority of diocesan priest, do not study spirituality and have only vague knowledge of it. However, their don't discourage their parishioners for going into this deeper form of prayer. That's except of course, neoconservatives. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]


Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='14 December 2009 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1260802176' post='2020229']

Oh I do. I see the difference between the spiritual level of pre-Vatican II Catholics and Catholics today.
In both eras, there were those who were spiritually deep, but I believe there are more today, who are going into contemplation, where the older generation, it was limited to religious and those living in monasteries. The average Catholic would've been dissuaded from reading about Contemplative Prayer by their parish priest, because even they were ignorant on contemplative prayer. Even today, the majority of diocesan priest, do not study spirituality and have only vague knowledge of it. However, their don't discourage their parishioners for going into this deeper form of prayer. [b]That's except of course, neoconservatives. [/b][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]


Jim
[/quote]
I like how nearly everything, or maybe everything you say here, is ultimately meant to be a not-so-subtle dig against "neoconservatives." You'd think all us neocons would have learned by now with someone as enlightened as yourself to guide us out of our barbaric pre-Vatican II mindset.